Thread: More stupidity

I am sure some of the older forum members may have experienced this, and don't come across all perfect and say "nope":
- Aged ~ 12 yrs, visiting parents' friends property on the edge of town. Farmland out the back. Given 15 shot tube mag 22 to go on my own and get a rabbit whilst olds drank tea and yakked. Happened on several occassions/visits. Had received firearm instruction on many outings with Dad (ex serviceman).
- Aged ~ 15 years, on L&S farm behind Taupo. Dad and mate headed off with one 22. Mate and I given box of bullets and other 22 and headed off in opposite direction. Met up later and compared numbers shot (in those days teaming with rabbits). Jokingly chastised if the ratio per bullets fired wasn't 1:1.
- Aged ~ 14 years. Staying on L&S farm during school hols. Out every day on my own shooting rabbits with farm's 22 Gecado Plinker. Meeting mate from adjacent farm of similar age also armed. More rabbit dead.

Cringe now when I think back. Supervision, even down to the finer point of how it should occur up close - NOPE.
How common in those days - pretty common from my recollection and comparing notes with mates.

Originally Posted by systolic

I never said what is or isn't acceptable.

Typical laywers answer & that will be $300 thanks

My own view is with supervision comes responsibility. The person "supervising" is 100% completely responsible for everything that occurs while the unlicensed person is with the firearm. If you are within arms length or you choose not to be does not matter in the sense that if something goes wrong, no matter how stupid or Darwin like the action may be, you were responsible because you were supervising.

In the situation from the original article, this means that the person supervising those boys is responsible for the death because as a supervising person he was in sole charge and should have been in a position to stop the incident happening. If you have taken every possible step that you can and someone gets hurt, your only defence is what you have done, and what you could have done to prevent it occurring but didn't, that will affect the outcome. If there was nothing further you could have done then that means it probably would have happened anyway.

Originally Posted by systolic

I never said what is or isn't acceptable. I asked: Where does it say anywhere in the law how close supervision is? The law says "immediate supervision".

IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION
No matter how old you are, if you do not have a firearms
licence but want to use a firearm, you may do so only under the
immediate supervision of someone who has a firearms licence.
In other words, the person with the licence must be with the
shooter, and close enough to take control of the firearm if
necessary. To meet this requirement the supervisor cannot be
using a firearm at the same time. Generally, this means that
there will be only one firearm between the two people.


Close enough to take control of the firearm if necessary. Unless you deem kicking it out of their hands as acceptable then I would suggest that 'within arms length' is correct.

Originally Posted by Ricochet

IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION
No matter how old you are, if you do not have a firearms
licence but want to use a firearm, you may do so only under the
immediate supervision of someone who has a firearms licence.
In other words, the person with the licence must be with the
shooter, and close enough to take control of the firearm if
necessary. To meet this requirement the supervisor cannot be
using a firearm at the same time. Generally, this means that
there will be only one firearm between the two people.


Close enough to take control of the firearm if necessary. Unless you deem kicking it out of their hands as acceptable then I would suggest that 'within arms length' is correct.

Taken from the police Arms Code. NOT law. NOT regulation.

Are you willing to accept police made up policy? Like their policies around MSSA length, safe wall thickness, caliber import restrictions, special reasons etc.

Really? The arms code isn't the law? I never knew that. I concede the point to you then Sir.

Originally Posted by systolic

Taken from the police Arms Code. NOT law. NOT regulation.

Are you willing to accept police made up policy? Like their policies around MSSA length, safe wall thickness, caliber import restrictions, special reasons etc.

If you are so smart , then get the bloke who lent him the shotgun off the charge ???????

Originally Posted by zimmer

I am sure some of the older forum members may have experienced this, and don't come across all perfect and say "nope":
- Aged ~ 12 yrs, visiting parents' friends property on the edge of town. Farmland out the back. Given 15 shot tube mag 22 to go on my own and get a rabbit whilst olds drank tea and yakked. Happened on several occassions/visits. Had received firearm instruction on many outings with Dad (ex serviceman).
- Aged ~ 15 years, on L&S farm behind Taupo. Dad and mate headed off with one 22. Mate and I given box of bullets and other 22 and headed off in opposite direction. Met up later and compared numbers shot (in those days teaming with rabbits). Jokingly chastised if the ratio per bullets fired wasn't 1:1.
- Aged ~ 14 years. Staying on L&S farm during school hols. Out every day on my own shooting rabbits with farm's 22 Gecado Plinker. Meeting mate from adjacent farm of similar age also armed. More rabbit dead.

Cringe now when I think back. Supervision, even down to the finer point of how it should occur up close - NOPE.
How common in those days - pretty common from my recollection and comparing notes with mates.

No need to cringe. It was very different back then Zimmer. At 12 I was shooting rats with a .22 at the dump in Newells Road in Tokoroa and I sure as hell wasn't dropped off out there. Kid, bike, rifle across handle bars. No one thought twice about seeing a kid with a rifle back then. Despite the over regulated world we live in, I bet there are still places in this country where kids that age and younger are still shooting bunnies by themselves and are perfectly safe in doing so because they have been drilled in how to properly handle a firearm since they were old enough to walk across a paddock with their old man. For those of you that have grown up wrapped in the cotton wool of modern nanny state legislation I would note that this is not me being an advocate for illegal activities, it is just the pragmatist in me saying that it will still be happening.

Originally Posted by systolic

Taken from the police Arms Code. NOT law. NOT regulation.

Are you willing to accept police made up policy? Like their policies around MSSA length, safe wall thickness, caliber import restrictions, special reasons etc.

...but the courts create common law, which in the absence of a legislative definition will apply. Arguing on the internet and living in your ivory tower (or under your bridge...) proves nothing - it is for the courts to determine parliaments intention.
10ring's definition of immediate above gives the literal and practical interpretation that a court will rely on.
I'm not going to look through case law to prove a point, over the internet with a cock who likes arguing - I can't be bothered.

Originally Posted by Rushy

No need to cringe. It was very different back then Zimmer. At 12 I was shooting rats with a .22 at the dump in Newells Road in Tokoroa and I sure as hell wasn't dropped off out there. Kid, bike, rifle across handle bars. No one thought twice about seeing a kid with a rifle back then. Despite the over regulated world we live in, I bet there are still places in this country where kids that age and younger are still shooting bunnies by themselves and are perfectly safe in doing so because they have been drilled in how to properly handle a firearm since they were old enough to walk across a paddock with their old man. For those of you that have grown up wrapped in the cotton wool of modern nanny state legislation I would note that this is not me being an advocate for illegal activities, it is just the pragmatist in me saying that it will still be happening.

Indeed. Thee was quite a different attitude and those kids clearly had a level of maturity that was acceptable. ( I would go as far as suggest a rural upbringing perhaps)

But todays society has had a significant attitude shift too. Back then most people knew what rifles did, and understood their function. If you were walking in town with a firearm slung over your shoulder, they knew that maybe you did not want to leave it in the vehicle for whatever reason. Or that you were popping into town on the way to a hunt etc. They trusted you to know that it was safe and that you had a valid reason for having it with you. Nowadays they are more likely to phone 111 screaming MURDER, MURDER, MURDER every time they see a canvas gunbag......We seem to be breeding drama queens rather than sensible people.

But its not all bad. The same attitude back the also seemed to apply to drink driving. Even as late as the 80s it was considered unlucky if you got caught driving drunk. The car seemed to know its own way home......Now the attitude if you get caught is more "you idiot, why were you dumb enough to think you should drive?". Note that the law has not changed much. It was illegal then as much a sit is illegal now, but the attitude towards it being acceptable or unacceptable has changed.

Originally Posted by systolic

Taken from the police Arms Code. NOT law. NOT regulation.

Are you willing to accept police made up policy? Like their policies around MSSA length, safe wall thickness, caliber import restrictions, special reasons etc.

So to clarify, Are you saying the Arms code is wrong? Or unreasonable?

I agree thats it's not law just because it is in the Arms code. But if I am supervising an unlicensed shooter, that is what I do, not because I believe the Arms code to be law, but because I believe it is the right thing to do by the person I am responsible for. While they are under my supervision, it is my responsibility to ensure they are safe no matter what happens.

Originally Posted by timattalon

So to clarify, Are you saying the Arms code is wrong? Or unreasonable?

I agree thats it's not law just because it is in the Arms code. But if I am supervising an unlicensed shooter, that is what I do, not because I believe the Arms code to be law, but because I believe it is the right thing to do by the person I am responsible for. While they are under my supervision, it is my responsibility to ensure they are safe no matter what happens.

You could certainly do a lot worse than using the Code as a best practice guideline. Good on you.

Originally Posted by Rushy

No need to cringe. It was very different back then Zimmer. At 12 I was shooting rats with a .22 at the dump in Newells Road in Tokoroa and I sure as hell wasn't dropped off out there. Kid, bike, rifle across handle bars. No one thought twice about seeing a kid with a rifle back then. Despite the over regulated world we live in, I bet there are still places in this country where kids that age and younger are still shooting bunnies by themselves and are perfectly safe in doing so because they have been drilled in how to properly handle a firearm since they were old enough to walk across a paddock with their old man. For those of you that have grown up wrapped in the cotton wool of modern nanny state legislation I would note that this is not me being an advocate for illegal activities, it is just the pragmatist in me saying that it will still be happening.

Ah! The Newell Road dump. Brings back many .22 rat shooting memories at 13/14 years old. Thanks Rushy.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Ah! The Newell Road dump. Brings back many .22 rat shooting memories at 13/14 years old. Thanks Rushy.

It was part of growing up in the town. How did you get out there back in the day?

Originally Posted by Rushy

It was part of growing up in the town. How did you get out there back in the day?

Biked out, usually with my mate sitting on the crossbar. Passing motorists used to wave to us.